This dissertation attempts to investigate the relationship between certain narrative strategies and meaning(s), and presents a narratological analysis of Golding&rsquo / s three novels. It primarily refers to the terminology offered by Genette and Rimmon-Kenan and, considering the mode of narration (voice) and the mode of focalization (mood), it tries to unearth narrative elements in narrative fiction. This dissertation argues that the implied author employs narrative agents and strategies of perspectivisation in order to affect, manipulate, determine or change the meaning(s), and that storytelling authority can be violated or balanced by monitority of perceiving. In The Inheritors, the implied author plays with shifting perspective to portray the other from within / in Pincher Martin, s/he explores temporality and timelessness to reveal post-mortem individual consciousness / unconsciousness, and in Free Fall, s/he produces a first-person retrospective narration where the protagonist deals with the act of story-telling and attempts to reconstruct his identity through manipulating subnarratives and perspectives.

In the "Art of the Short Story" Hemingway elaborates on his concept of omission as it relates not only to prose writing, but to the special case of writing short stories. Hemingway develops two models to describe his short stories: on the one hand, he describes short stories like "The Sea Change" in terms of omission and exclusion, in terms of leaving the story out of the short story, and on the other, he refers metaphorically to "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" as an airplane loaded with story material which would be enough for four novels. Both models suggest a doubling of the concept of story---in the case of the story left out of the story, Hemingway makes a distinction between the text of the published short story and the underlying events and facts (the story), and in the case of the "loading" of "The Snows in Kilimanjaro" he distinguishes between the vehicle part and the cargo part. This doubling of the story in Hemingway's short stories can be examined in terms of first and secondary narratives using Gérard Genette's analytical method of study of narrative discourse. First and secondary narratives emerge as a result of temporal discordances between the order of the events narrated in the text of the short story and the chronological order of the events in the story. Thus the effect of the doubling of the story can be mapped onto the dynamic interplay of surface first narratives and submerged, fragmentary secondary narratives in the case of the stories characterized by omission, and in the case of the short stories with loaded narratives, onto the interplay between temporally differentiated first and secondary narratives. Hemingway slides the temporal plane of his first narratives into the future and outside the temporal plane of important events which are then evoked by the characters as secondary narratives capable of affecting the surface dynamics of the first narrative. Instead of presenting the information about these temporally omitted or differentiated events in the discourse of an objective narrator, Hemingway relies on characters' discourse to evoke and thus recreate in a subjective, fragmentary way the story left out.

Automatic understanding of stories is a long-time goal of artificial intelligence and natural language processing research communities. Stories literally explain the human experience. Understanding our stories promotes the understanding of both individuals and groups of people; various cultures, societies, families, organizations, governments, and corporations, to name a few. People use stories to share information. Stories are told –by narrators– in linguistic bundles of words called narratives. My work has given computers awareness of narrative structure. Specifically, where are the boundaries of a narrative in a text. This is the task of determining where a narrative begins and ends, a non-trivial task, because people rarely tell one story at a time. People don’t specifically announce when we are starting or stopping our stories: We interrupt each other. We tell stories within stories. Before my work, computers had no awareness of narrative boundaries, essentially where stories begin and end. My programs can extract narrative boundaries from novels and short stories with an F1 of 0.65. Before this I worked on teaching computers to identify which paragraphs of text have story content, with an F1 of 0.75 (which is state of the art). Additionally, I have taught computers to identify the narrative point of view (POV; how the narrator identifies themselves) and diegesis (how involved in the story’s action is the narrator) with F1 of over 0.90 for both narrative characteristics. For the narrative POV, diegesis, and narrative level extractors I ran annotation studies, with high agreement, that allowed me to teach computational models to identify structural elements of narrative through supervised machine learning. My work has given computers the ability to find where stories begin and end in raw text. This allows for further, automatic analysis, like extraction of plot, intent, event causality, and event coreference. These tasks are impossible when the computer can’t distinguish between which stories are told in what spans of text. There are two key contributions in my work: 1) my identification of features that accurately extract elements of narrative structure and 2) the gold-standard data and reports generated from running annotation studies on identifying narrative structure.

<p>This essay examines the adaptation of <em>The French Lieutenant’s Woman;</em> proclaiming that it is based on the same core of meaning as the novel. This core, or interiority, of the art work, is the <em>freedom</em> which Sarah Woodruff presents. The interiority is immanent within the novel as well as the film. The freedom that Sarah presents creates <em>gaps in time</em> and is mainly <em>freedom from time</em>. From an exterior perspective though, these art works look different. The exteriority is visualized and described by being denominated as different narrative levels. In the film Mike falls in love with Sarah as an escape from his own time, one that is characterized by more lenient moral views than those prevalent in the Victorian Age. This present-day character is not, of course, in the novel but is invented by Harold Pinter as part of a metaphor for Fowles’ metafictional stance. In the novel, freedom is partly represented by an extradiegetic narrative level and suggested in various comments made by the apparent author of the work: John Fowles. This essay highlights the contrasts between the fictive world (on a hypodiegetic level), and the real world (on a diegetic level). By doing this, this essay suggests a motive for Pinter’s “narrative innovation” as a “brilliant metaphor” for Fowles´ novel. With these contrasts we find that the restraints of a seemingly open society (the 1980s in which Pinter was writing the screenplay) are able to contain an inner, rather implicit, restraint for the individual of the 1980s. The longing for freedom is triggered as soon as man is deprived of freedom, irrespective of how and when. Sarah is an escape from Victorian Age for Charles, at the same time as she is an escape from the 1980s for Mike. On the whole, Sarah is an escape from the linearity of all time. Freedom is immanent with both of the artworks, yet they are completely different, seen from outside.</p><p> </p><p> </p>

This essay examines the adaptation of The French Lieutenant’s Woman; proclaiming that it is based on the same core of meaning as the novel. This core, or interiority, of the art work, is the freedom which Sarah Woodruff presents. The interiority is immanent within the novel as well as the film. The freedom that Sarah presents creates gaps in time and is mainly freedom from time. From an exterior perspective though, these art works look different. The exteriority is visualized and described by being denominated as different narrative levels. In the film Mike falls in love with Sarah as an escape from his own time, one that is characterized by more lenient moral views than those prevalent in the Victorian Age. This present-day character is not, of course, in the novel but is invented by Harold Pinter as part of a metaphor for Fowles’ metafictional stance. In the novel, freedom is partly represented by an extradiegetic narrative level and suggested in various comments made by the apparent author of the work: John Fowles. This essay highlights the contrasts between the fictive world (on a hypodiegetic level), and the real world (on a diegetic level). By doing this, this essay suggests a motive for Pinter’s “narrative innovation” as a “brilliant metaphor” for Fowles´ novel. With these contrasts we find that the restraints of a seemingly open society (the 1980s in which Pinter was writing the screenplay) are able to contain an inner, rather implicit, restraint for the individual of the 1980s. The longing for freedom is triggered as soon as man is deprived of freedom, irrespective of how and when. Sarah is an escape from Victorian Age for Charles, at the same time as she is an escape from the 1980s for Mike. On the whole, Sarah is an escape from the linearity of all time. Freedom is immanent with both of the artworks, yet they are completely different, seen from outside.